UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA
G OOD RI CH CO RP OR AT ION and GI B S O N, DU NN & C RU T CH E R, L L P, P lai nt iffs, v. Ci vilAc ti on N o. 08 -1 62 5 ( JD B) U. S. EN VI RO NM EN TA L P RO TEC TIO N AG ENCY, Defendan t.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION Be fore the Court are the cr oss-motions for summary judgme nt filed by

Goodrich Corporation and G ibson, Dunn & Crutc her, L L P (collectively , "pla intiffs") and the United States Environmental Protec tion Age ncy (" EPA" or

"de fenda nt") . Plaintiffs have filed suit under the Fr eedom of

Information Ac t (" FOIA" ), 5 U.S.C. § 552, seekingto compel the produc tion of two do c ume nts EPAha s to date wi thh e ld f ro m pr od uc tio n. EPAargue s th at it ha s p ro pe rl y

wi thh e ld both documents pursuant to F OIA' s statutory exemptions . For

the re asons set for

th below, pla int if fs ' and EPA ' s summa

ry jud g me nt m oti on s a

re bo th gra

nte d in pa rt and de nie d in pa rt . BACK GR OUND At iss ue in t his c a se are tw o E PA m od e ls u se d to ana ly ze c ontamin atio n at a

sit e in Rialto, California (" the Site") . The Site has bee n occupie d by sever al entities since World War I I ; Goodrich Corporation ("G oodrich" ) occ upied the Site from 1957 to 1963. Compl. ¶ 8. Sometime after 1963, E PA discovere d g roundwater c ontamination in the near by Rialto-Colt on Ba sin. I n 2003, EPA issued a Unilater al Administrative Orde r (" UAO" ) to Goodrich a nd another company pursuant to sec tion 106 of the Comprehensive E nvironmental Response,-2-

Com pe ns atio n, and

L ia bil ity Ac t. 4 2 U .S. C. § 96 06 . T he UA O o rd e re d th e c omp anie s to inv e sti g ate the c ontamin atio n at th e Site and to t ake c e rt a in r e me dia l a c tio ns the re . Se e Com pl. Ex . 3. EPA has deve loped, or is deve loping, two models re lated to the Site. One model, the

" va do se zon e mod e l," " sim ulat[e s] th e do wnwa

rd mov e me nt o f p e rc hlo rate thr ou g h th e va do se zone at the Site (i.e., the zone, appr ox imately 420 fee t deep, be tween the g round surfa ce a nd the underlying groundwater)." Dec laration of Way ne Praskins, Oc tober 20, 2008, ¶ 4. T he sec ond model, the " g roundwater flow mode l," " simulates the movement of groundwater at the Site under vary ing c onditions." I d. ¶ 9. This model is stil l in development, but EPA "pla n[s] to make the g roundwater model available" when it is complete in ea rly 2009. I d. ¶ 10. Plaintiffs lear ned of these models in 2006. Plaintiffs alleg e that Jorge L eon, counse l for the Califor nia Reg ional Water Qua lity

Control Boar d (" Reg ional Boa rd" ), informe d Goodrich' s counsel, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher , L L P ("G ibson Dunn") , that EPA had deve loped a model de monstrating that Goodrich could not have be en re sponsible for the c ontamination at the Site. Compl . ¶ 10. On De c e mbe r 1 9, 20 07 , G ibs on Dunn su bmi tte d a F OIA r e qu e st s e e kin g" a ll m od e ls, prepa red by or for the U.S. EPA, reg ardingthe g roundwater c ontamination" at the Site. Com pl. ¶ 1 1
. E P Al o c at e d

th e tw o m o d e l s b u tw i th h e l d th e m , c l a i m i n gth e p r o t e c t i o no f F O IA Exe mpt ion s 5 and

7. EPA ' s Sta

te me nt o f F a c ts ¶

6. Gi bs on

Dunn fi le d a n a pp e a l, whic h E PA denied on Septembe r 12, 2008. I d. ¶¶ 7- 8. Plaintiffs filed the cur rent c omplaint one wee k later. Plaintiffs simul taneously

soug ht limi ted discover

y to expl ore the validity

of EPA' s claimed exemptions and an a lleg ed wa iver of E x emption 5 protection for the vadose zone model. On October 31, 2008, this Court i ssued an Or der pe rmitting plaintiffs to depose Mr. L eon and-3-

another Reg ional Boa

rd employ ee, K

urt Be rchtold, on limited issues related to the w aiver claim. No w b e fo re the Court

are the pa

rt ie s' c ro ss- mot ion s f

or summa ry jud g me nt. STANDARD Un de r R ule 56 of the F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure , s umm ary jud g me nt i s a

pp ro pr iate "if the pleading s . . . and any aff idavits show that there is no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t and that the movant is entitled to judg ment as a matter of law ." F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Mater ial fac ts are those that "mig ht affe ct the outcome of the suit under the g overninglaw." Ander son v. L iberty L obby , Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). T he movant bea rs the initial burden of de mon str atin gthe a

bs e nc e of a g e nu ine iss ue of

mate ri a l f

a c t. C e lot e x Cor

p. v. Catr e tt, 47 7 U .S. 31 7, 32 2 ( 19 86 ). Th e pa

rt y op po sin ga

mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt, ho we ve r, " may no t r e ly
mere ly on alleg ations or denials in its own pleading ; rather , its response must -- by aff idavits or as otherw ise provided in this rule -- set out specific fac ts showing a g enuine issue f

or trial." Fe d. R. C iv. P. 5 6( e )( 2) . T he no nmo vin gpa rt y mus t do mor e tha

n s imp ly " sh owthat th e re is s ome
me ta phy sic a l do ub t a s to the mate ri a l f a c ts. " Matsu sh ita

El e c . Ind us . Co ., L td. v. Z e nit

h Ra dio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Any fac tual asser

tions in t he movant' s aff

idavits will be
acc epted a s beingtrue unless the opposingparty submits hi s own aff

idavits or other doc umentary evidenc e contr adictingthe asser tion. Neal v. Ke lly , 963 F.2d 453, 456 ( D.C. Cir. 1992). F OIA r e qu ir e s a

fe de ra l a g e nc y

to r e le a se a ll r e c or ds re sp on siv e to a pr op e r r e qu e st
e xce pt t ho se pr ote c te d f

ro m di sc los ur e by

on e or mor e of nin e e nume rate d e xemp tio ns se t f or th at 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). The district c ourt is authorized "to e njoin [ a fe dera l] ag ency from wi thh old inga g e nc y

re c or ds or

to o rd e r t he pr od uc tio n o f a

ny a g e nc y re c or ds imp ro pe rl y

wi thh e ld from the c omplainant." 5 U .S.C. § 552(a)(4) (B ); see K issinger v. Reporter s Comm. for Fre edom-4-

of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 139 (1980) . The a g ency has the burde n of provingthat "e ach do c ume nt t

hat f a lls wi thi n th e c la ss r e qu e ste d e ith e r h a s b e e n p ro du c e d, is unid e nti fi a ble , o r i s
w h o l l y e x e mp tf

r o mth e A c t ' s i n s p e c t i o nr e qu i r e m e n t s . " G o l an d v . C e n tr a l In t e l l i g e n c e A g e n c y, 607 F.2d 339, 352 ( D.C. Cir. 1978), cer t. denied, 445 U.S. 927 (1980) ( internal c itation and quotation omitt ed); see also Maydak v. De p' t of J ustice, 218 F .3d 760, 764 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (the g overnme nt has the burde n of provingeac h claimed F OIA exemption). The district court may
awa rd summa ry jud g me nt t o a

n a g e nc y so le ly on the ba sis of

inf or matio n p ro vid e d in

a ff ida vit s
or de c laratio ns that de sc ri be " the do c ume nts and the jus tif ic atio ns fo r n on dis c los ur e wi th
rea sonably

specific detail, demonstrate that the information withheld log ically falls within the claimed e x emption, and ar e not controve rted by either c ontrary

evidenc e in the re cord nor by evidenc e of a g ency

bad fa ith." Military

Audit Project v. Casey , 656 F.2d 724, 738 ( D.C. Cir. 1981); see a lso Vaug hn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 826 ( D.C. Cir. 1973), cer t. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974). AN AL YSI S I. Gr ound water F low Model E P Aar gu e s th ati tp r o p e r l y w i th h e l d th e g r o un dw at e r

f l o wm o d e l p ur s u an tt o F O IA Ex emption 5, which applies to " inter-a g ency or intra- ag ency

memorandums or le tters which would not be ava ilable by law to a pa

rty other than a

n ag ency in liti g ation with the ag ency ." See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). " ' Courts have c onstrued this exempti on to encompass the pr otections traditionally

aff orded c erta in documents pursuant to evide ntiary privileg es in the civil discover y context, including mater ials which would be pr otected unde r the attorney -client privileg e, the at t o rn ey wo rk -p ro d

u ctp ri v i l ege , o r t h e e x ec u t i v e d el i b er at i v e p ro ce s s p ri v i l ege . '" R o ckwe l l In t 'l-5-

Corp. v. Dep' t of J ustice, 235 F .3d 598, 601 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quotingFor maldehyde Inst. v. De p' t of He a lthand

Human Se rv s. , 8 89 F .2 d 1 11 8, 11 21 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 9) ). In th e F OIA c on te xt, the deliber ative proc ess privileg e applies to inter- or intra- ag ency documents that ar e both pre
decisional a

nd deliberative. See B aker & H ostettler L L P v. Dep' t of Commerce , 473 F.3d 312, 321 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Plaintiffs challeng e only

the deliber ative natur e of the g roundwater flow mode l. Plaintiffs' the ory

is straig htforwa

rd: the model is purely

fac tual and fa cts ca

nnot be deliber ative. Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary J udg ment (" Pls. Mem.") at 26. Plaintiffs are c orre ct that a longline of ca ses, beg inning with Environmenta l Protection Ag ency v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 79 (1973), rec og nizes a distinction between fa ctual and deliberative materia ls. But the distinction is not as stark as plaintiffs portra y it to be. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit has cautioned a g ainst overuse of the fa ctual/deliber ative distinction. See Dudman Commc'ns Corp. v. De p' t of Air F orce , 815 F.2d 1565, 1568 ( D.C. Cir. 1987). "E x emption 5 was intende d to protect not simply deliberative materia l, but also the deliberative proce ss of
a g e nc ie s. " Mo ntr os e Che mic a l Co rp . v . T ra in, 49 1 F .2 d 6 3, 71 (D .C. Cir . 1 97 4) (e mph a sis added) . In Montrose, the D.C. Circuit expressly reta ined the fa ctual/deliber ative distinction while re cog nizi ng"that in some cases se lection of fa cts or summaries ma y ref lect a de liberative proce ss which exemption 5 was intended to shelter." I d. In the cur rent c ase, EPA a sserts (a

nd plaintiffs do not dispute) that the g roundwater flow model is in draft for

m. Decla ration of Ke ith Takata ¶

24. As a g ener al matter, " draf ts" of documents ar e exempt from disclosure unde r the de liberative pr ocess pr ivilege . See, e.g ., City of Va. B eac h v. Dep' t of Commerce , 995 F.2d 1247, 1253 ( 4th Cir. 1993); Dudman, 815 F.2d at-6-

1569; Russell v. Dep' t of Air F orce , 682 F.2d 1045, 1048 ( D.C. Cir. 1988). The dra ft g roundwater flow mode l refle cts EPA' s deliberative proce ss beca use " evolvingiterations of the Mo de l' s in

puts a nd c a lib ratio n r e fl e c t th e op ini on s o f t he sta ff c ur re ntl y de ve lop ingthe Mo de l, which may

not repre sent EPA' s ultim ate opinions relating to these matters." I d. ¶ 25. Ther efor e, even if the data plug g ed into the model is itself purely fac tual, the selec tion and calibration of data is par

t of the deliber ative proc ess to which Exemption 5 applies. See Montrose, 491 F .2d at 71 . T he re fo re , E PA h a s p ro pe rl y wi thh e ld t

he g ro un dw ate r f

low mod e l, e ve n th ou g h it

pla ns to rele ase the complete or

final model in the future
. II. Vadose Zone M odel The pa rties devote most of their

briefingto the vadose zone model. EPA ar gues that Ex emptions 5 and 7(A) justify its withhol ding of

the model. Exempti on 5, as discussed a bove, applies to inter- or

intra-a g ency

documents that would be pr ivilege d in the civil discovery context. S ee Roc kwell, 235 F.3d a t 601. Accor ding to EPA, attorney work produc t protection would justify

withholding the va dose zone model in the civil discovery context. S ee Memorandum in Support of EPA' s Motion for Summary J udg ment (" EPA Mem.") at 6. Ex emption 7(A) a

pplies to "re cords or

information compiled for law enf orce ment purposes, but
on ly to t he e xtent th at pr od

uc tio n o f s uc h la

w e nf or c e me nt r e c or ds or

inf or matio n . . . c ou ld
rea sonably

be expected to inter fer e with enf orce ment proce eding s." 5 U .S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A ). EPA argues that re lease of the model would interf ere with its enforce ment of the UA O it issued to Goodrich in 2003. As discussed be low, under the circ umstances he re, ne ither exemption jus tif ie s E PA' s w ithho ldi ngof

the va do se zon e mod e l.-7-

A. Exe mption 5 The pa rties dispute whethe r the va dose zone model is entitled to attorney work produc t pr ote c tio n in

the fi rs t pl a c e . Wo rk

pr od uc t pr ote c tio n o nly

a pp lie s to do c ume nts " pr e pa re d in anticipation of litigation." F ed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A ). " Materia ls assembled in the ordinar y
c ours e of bu sin e ss" do no t r e c e ive wo rk pr od uc t pr ote c tio n. Ad

vis or y Comm. N ote s to Rul e 26(b)( 3), 1970 Amendme nt. Plainti ffs a rgue that the model wa s prepa red in EPA' s ordinary
course of business bec ause " there is no plausible rea son to presume that in this particular instance the mod e l w a s c re ate d p ur su ant t o a ny thi ngoth e r t

ha n th e EPA ' s o rd ina

ry a dmi nis tr atio n o f i ts statut or y dutie s. " Pls. Me m. a

t 14 . E PA r e sp on ds that li tig atio n w a s n ot s o f ar- fe tc he d whe n it pr e pa re d th e mod e l. B e c a

us e EPAiss ue d a

UA O o rd e ri ngGo od

ri c h a nd oth e r c omp anie s to
reme diate the Site and be cause the EPA often r esorts to litigation to enfor ce UAOs, the a rgument g oes, EPA pre pare d the model in anticipation of litigation. EPA Reply Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Summ ary J udg ment (" EPA Rep.") at 8-9. Ea ch side ha s a point, but the Court need not r esolve this dispute beca use, as discusse d below, EPA has wa ived any protec tion that might have exis ted. EPA waived a

ny privileg e prote ctingthe vadose zone model beca use EPA share d the results of the model with the Reg ional Boa rd, which in turn disclosed the results to Gibson Dunn. The Court ar

rives at this conc lusion based on its resolution of three issues, two fac tual and one leg al: whether

EPA share d the re sults of the model with the Reg ional Boa rd; whethe r the R egi o n al Bo ar d

s h ar edth o s e r es u l t s wi thGi b s o nDu n n ; an d wh et h er d i s cl o s i n g th e m o d el 's results is sufficient to wa ive whate ver pr ivilege protec ted the model itself. The fir st issue is the easiest. In the summer of 2006, EPA he ld a meetingwith Reg ionalEPA argues in its Reply that it did not di sclose the r esults of the model to the Reg ional 1 B oa rd be c a us e it p re se nte d o nly

pr e lim ina

ry re su lts at th e me e tin g . E PA R e p. 5- 8. B ut E PA does not contend that the results in the final model ar e substantively differ ent than the pr e lim ina ry re su lts pr e se nte d to the Re g ion a l B oa rd . T he Court

the re fo re g ive s n o w e ig ht t o EPA ' s su g g e sti on

that it did no t di sc los e the mod e l' s r e su lts be c a us e the re su lts hy

po the tic a lly could have chang ed af

ter the pr esentation. I n any event, a s ref

lected in the Court' s Order , d ef en d an ti s o rd er edt o p ro d

u ce th e m o d el as i tex i s t edatth e t i m e o f th e m ee t i n g.

-8- Boa rd staff . EPA did not share the va dose zone model itself at that mee ting. EPA did, howe ver, g ive a slide pre sentation of both the pre liminary results of the model a

nd the inputs used to arrive at those re sults. S ee D eposition of Kurt B erc htold at 58-60; see a lso id. at 52-53 (testimony
e sta bli sh ingthat Mr . Pr a sk ins te le ph on ic a lly divulg e d th e re su lts of

the va do se zon e mod e l to Mr. B erc htold). This fact is undisputed. 1 Th e se c on d is su e -- wh e the r t he Re g ion a l B oa

rd sh are d th e re su lts wi th G ibs on Dunn -- is closer. T wo Goodric h attorney s, Pete Duche sneau a nd J eff rey Dintzer, claim that they

had
sever al conve rsations in August 2006 with J org e L eon, counse l for the Reg ional Boa rd. See Dec laration of Pete Duche sneau ¶ 4; Second Supplemental Dec laration of J eff rey Dintzer ¶ 3. Acc ordingto Messrs. Duche sneau a nd Dintzer, Mr. L eon conve y ed the r esults of the vadose zone model duringthose conve rsations. In plaintiffs' deposition of Mr. L eon, howe ver, the deponent proved intra ctable, r epeatedly claimingnot to remember sharingthe re sults of the model with the Gibson Dunn attorney s. See, e.g ., Deposition of J org e L eon at 33- 34. Yet what might in other circ umstances c onstitut e the kind of f actua l dispute to defeat summary judgme nt does not defe at it here. Mr . L eon' s testimony does not cre ate a

g enuine a

nd materia l fac tual dispute. Mr. L eon do e s n ot d e ny

that he tr ans mitte d th e re su lts of the mod e l to Gi bs on

Dunn atto rn e y s; h e sim

ply does not reme mber doingso. Wi thout the benef it of useful testimony

from Mr. L eon, the Court is left with the decla

rations of Gibson Dunn attorney s. To be sure , the Court is wary of such-9-

of fe rs of pr oo f b e c a

us e the y c ou ld b e vie we d a s se lf

-s e rv ing . B ut p la int if

fs su pp le me nt t

ho se decla rations with contempora

neous re dacte d time sheets from Mr. D intz er. Those rec ords indicate that Mr. D intz er " confe r[red] with J . L eon re water board mode l" a

nd held a

" te le c on fe re nc e to L e on

re mod e l f

ro m E PA" in Augus t 20 06 . Se e Se c on d Su pp . D int zer

De c l. Ex. A . T he se c onte mpo ra ne ou s r e c or ds , c ou

ple d w iththe sw or

n d e c laratio ns , a

re su ff ic ie nt t o
overc ome any

doubts crea

ted by Mr. L eon' s equivoca l testimony . The Court is there fore persua ded that the Reg ional Boa rd shar ed with Goodric h' s counsel the r esults of the vadose zone model that they

lear ned fr om EPA. That bring s us to the final, leg al issue: whether the Reg ional Boa

rd' s disclosure of the results of the va dose zone model to plaintiffs waives whateve r privileg e prote cted the mode l itself. Plaintiffs argue that " [w] ork produc t is 'disclosed' wher e an outside pa rty has lea rned the 'gi s t ' o f t h e d o cu m en t 's co n t en t s . " P l s . M em . at1 8 (c i t i n g C hu b b In t egr at edS y s . L t d
. v . Na t 'l B ank of Was hin g ton , 1 03 F .R. D. 52 , 6 3 ( D. D. C. 1 98 4) ). EPA c ounte rs that th e g ist

sta nd ard is inapplicable he re. EPA Rep. at 3-5 (citingIn re United Mine Workers of A merica Employ ee Be n. Plans L it., 159 F.R.D. 307 (D.D.C. 1994)) . Acc ordingto EPA, plaintiffs rely on a subjec t matter wa iver theor

y , and subjec t matter wa iver doe s not apply to waiver of attorne y

work product prote ction. To be sure , the test for w aivingattorney work produc t protection is more string ent than the test for w aivingattorney -client privileg e. See United Mine Workers, 159 F .R.D. at 310. Under cer tain circ umstances, howe ver, disclosure of some attorne y work produc t may

result in a waiver of other a

ttorney work produc t. See In re Sea led Case, 676 F .2d 793, 817 (D.C. Cir. 1982). The ke y

inquiries are policy -driven. I s the party claimingprotec tion doing so in a wa y-10-

consistent with the purpose of the privileg e? And is the party ' s claim to work produc t protection

" ne c e ssa ry to m a int a in a

he a lthy a dv e rs ary

sy ste m" ? Se e id. at 81 8. Se ve ra l f a c tor s f igur e int o the ana ly sis: whether disclosure was intentional or inadve rtent, see id. at 817-18; see a lso I n re Sealed Case , 877 F.2d 976, 980 ( D.C. Cir. 1989); the brea dth of the wa iver soug ht, compare United Mine Workers, 159 F .R.D. at 311-12 (holdingthat a re quest for a n open-e nded set of documents cut a g ainst a findingof wa iver), w ith W ichita L and & Cattle Co. v. Am. Fed. B ank, F.S.B ., 148 F.R.D. 456, 457 (D .D.C. 1992) (c ompelling disclosure of two spec ific docume nts); and the e x tent to which the re quested doc uments would reve al litigation strate g ies or trial prepa rations, see Bow les v. Nat' l Ass'n of Home B uilders, 224 F.R.D. 246, 258 ( D.D.C. 2004). Her e, ea ch fa ctor fa

vors plaintiffs. EPA purposely share d the re sults of the vadose zone model with the Reg ional Boa rd. Althoug h EPA was not re sponsible for the ne x t step -- shar ing the re su lts wi th G oo dr ic h - - E PA' s f a ilure to " je a lou sly gua rd []" its pr ote c te d in fo rm atio n c uts ag ainst it. S ee I

n re Sea led Case, 877 F .2d at 980 (" [T] he conf identiality

of communications
cover ed by

the privileg e must be jea lously guarde d by

the holder of

the privileg e lest it be
wa ive d. Th e c ourt s w ill g ra nt n o g re ate r p ro te c tio n to tho se wh o a sse rt the pr ivi le g e tha

n th e ir own pre cautions wa

rra nt. We therefor e agree with those courts which ha ve held that the privileg e is lost even if the disclosure is inadvertent." ) (inter nal citations and quotations omitted). EPAdo e s c la im that it

a sk e d th e Re g ion a l B oa

rd to m a int a in t

he c on fi de nti a lity

of the re su lts , but testimony

from Mr. B erc htold undercuts EPA' s claim. See B erc htold Dep. at 79-80 (t e sti fy ingthat he did

no t r e c a ll a

re qu e st b y

EPAto k e e p th e va do se zon e mod e l' s r e su lts
co n fi d en t i al ). No r d i d

E P A r equ i re R egi o n al Bo ar d emp l o y ee s at t en d i n g th e p re s en t at i o nt o s i gn
a wr itt e n c on fi de nti a lity

a g re e me nt. I d. Mr . B e rc hto ld' s te sti mony de mon str ate s th at E PA d id-11-

not exercise the kind of " zealous stewar dship" of attorney work produc t that the law dema nds. See Wichita L and & Cattle, 148 F.R.D. at 460. Th e ne xt co ns ide ratio n is the br e a dth of the wa ive r s ou g ht. Pla int if fs c la im that E PA
wa ive d w or

k p ro du c t pr ote c tio n f

or a sin g le do c ume nt - - t

he va do se zon e mod e l - - whe n E PA dis c los e d th e inp uts and

re su lts of that mo de l to the Re g ion a l B oa rd . T his fa c tua l sc e na

ri o there fore rese mbles In re Sea led Case, 877 F .2d at 817-18 (e ight spe cific doc uments at issue),
and Wic hit a L and & Cattl e , 1 48 F .R. D. at 45 7 ( tw o s pe c if ic do c ume nts at is su e ). Th e re qu e st i s not for an ope n-ende d list of all documents relate d to a ce rtain subject matter
. Moreove r, disclosure of

the model itself would not reve al EPA' s liti g ation strateg ies or trial prepa

rations. The mode l does not contain attorne y opinions or mental impressions of counsel. The model contains fa cts. And the model is not in draft f orm, so the fa ctors counse ling ag ainst disclosure of the draf t gr oundwater

flow model do not apply to the vadose zone model. This analy sis demonstrates that withholding of the model is neither ne cessa ry to maintain a healthy adver sary

sy stem nor consistent with the purpose of work produc t protection. Havingconclude d that EPA share d the re sults of the vadose zone model with the Reg ional Boa

rd, that the Reg ional Boa

rd then shar ed the r esults with Goodrich, and that sharing the re sults of the model constitutes a waive r of a ny privileg e that prote cted the mode l itself, the Court ho lds that E xemp tio n 5 do e s n ot p ro te c t th e va do se zon e mod e l f ro m di sc los ur e be c a

us e EPA, by its actions, has waive d that protec tion which it might otherwise ha ve. B. Exe mption 7(

A) EPA also contends that the va dose zone model is protecte d from disclosure under Ex emption 7(A) of

FOIA. Exempti on 7(A) a llows an ag ency to withhold "re cords or

information-12-

compiled for la

w enf orce ment purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law
e nf or c e me nt r e c or ds or

inf or matio n . . . c ou ld r e a so na bly be e xpe c te d to int e rf

e re wi th enfor ceme nt proce eding s." 5 U .S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A ). " To fit within Ex emption 7(A), the g overnme nt must show that (1) a law e nforc ement proc eedingis pendingor prospe ctive and ( 2) rele ase of the information could r easona bly be expected to c ause some a rticulable ha

rm." Manna v. Dep' t of J ustice, 51 F .3d 1158, 1164 (3d Cir. 1995). First is the re quirement that a law enf orce ment proce edingbe pendingor prospe ctive. EPAa sse rt s th at it

me e ts this re qu ir e me nt b e c a us e the 20 03 iss ua

nc e of a UA O c arr ie s w ithit a sufficie ntly

high likelihood of a

n enfor ceme nt proce eding . EPA Rep. at 12-13 (c iting Ge nera l Electric Co. v. Environmental Protection Ag ency , 18 F. Supp. 2d 138 (D. Ma ss. 1998)). Pla int if fs re sp on d th at th e UA O c ann ot q ua lif y a s a pe nd ingor

pr os pe c tiv e e nf

or c e me nt b e c a

us e it has alrea dy

been issued. Pls. Mem. at 24 (c iting F irestone Tire & Rubbe r Co. v. Coleman, 432 F . Su pp . 1 35 9 (N. D. Oh io 1 97 6) ). To be sure , th e c a se c ite d b y pla int if fs , whic h d e a ls w ith investigatory

order s issued by

the National Highway

and Tra ffic Saf

ety Administration (" NHTSA" ), conta ins a helpful dictum that " [a] NHTSA administrative investig ation cannot be deeme d ' pending ' for pur

poses of the ( b)(7) (A) E x emption after NHTSA issues a f

inal order wh ic h b e c ome s th e su

bje c t of de no vo jud ic ia l r e vie w b e c a us e the a g e nc y

is r e qu ir e d to c omp le te its investigation prior to issuing a final administrative de cision." See Fire stone Tire & Rubber, 43 2 F . Su pp . at 13 69 n. 21 . B ut G e ne ra l E le c tr ic , c ite d b y EPA , is mor e pe rs ua siv e . T hat c a se deals squar ely

with the same issue fa ced he re: whe ther a UAO qua lifies as a pe nding or prospec tive law enf

orce ment proce edingfor the pur poses of Exemption 7(A). See 18 F . Supp. 2d at 14 3- 44 (a

pp lyingMa

po the r v . D e p' t of

Justi c e , 3 F .3 d 1 53 3 ( D. C. C ir . 1 99 3) , a nd B ri sto l--13-

My ers Co. v. F eder al Tra de Comm'n, 424 F .2d 935 (D.C. Cir. 1970)). In Gene ral Elec tric, the court e x amined the va

riety of potential enf

orce ment proce eding s that could follow issuance of a UAO, c oncludingthat the likelihood of post-UAO e nforc ement proc eeding s is sufficiently g reat to satisfy the first re quirement for

Ex emption 7(A) - - the e x istence of an enf orce ment proce eding
. See id. This Court is not persuaded othe rwise. EPA does not, howeve r, satisfy the sec ond require ment -- a rea sonable likelihood of articula ble har m. The har

m that EPA articulates is as f ollows: "Relea se of [the vadose zone model] would cause De fenda nt harm by

allowingthe Plaintiffs acc ess to Def endant' s liti g ation prepa ration bef ore D efe ndant has ha d an opportunity to file a c omplaint, propound discovery and expert witnesses and pr epar e expert re ports." E PA Rep. at 14. Plaintiffs respond that this kind of ha rm mis se s th e po int

of Exe mpt ion

7( A) , whic h, a c c or din gto p la int if fs , is c on c e rn e d w ith harm c aused by

opportunistic use of F OIA by the targ ets of an inve stigation. Pl s. Mem. at 21-24. Pla int if fs are c or re c t. E xemp tio n 7 (A ) p ro te c ts f ro m di sc los ur e inf

or matio n th at w ou ld permit the targ et of a

n investigation to destroy rele vant evidenc e or f

abric ate a fra udulent alibi. Se e Al y e sk a

Pip e lin e Se rv . Co . v . E nv ir onme nta l Pr ote c tio n A g e nc y , 8 56 F .2 d 3 09 , 3 12 (D .C. Cir. 1988). The e x emption also seeks to pre vent the tar g et of a n investigation from intimi dating witnesses who mig ht otherwise c ooperate with an ong oing inve stigation. See NL RB v. Robbins Ti re & Rub be r C o. , 4 37 U. S. 2 14 , 2 24 (1 97 8) . H e re , th e re is n o e vid e nc e fo r p la int if fs to destroy ; nor are there witnesses for them to intim idate. The contamination at the Site took place deca des ag o and Goodr ich vac ated the pr emises in 1967. Release of the va dose zone model
wo uld no t thre ate n th e int e g ri ty of EPA ' s e nf

or c e me nt e ff

or ts b y e na bli ngGo od

ri c h to e ng a g e in
any ina pp ro pr iate me ans to u

nd e rm ine it.-14-

EPAwo uld

un do ub te dly

be ha rm e d if the mod e l e xone rate s G oo dr ic h, a s p la int if fs say it does. I f the model de monstrates that Goodric h could not have be en re sponsible for contamination at the Site, then Goodr ich could ce ase c ompliance with the UA O and use the mod e l in its own d e fe ns e sh ou ld E PA i nit iate e nf or c e me nt p ro c e e din g s. Un de r t his hy po the tic a l, pla int if fs wi ll h ave re c e ive d s ome dis c ov e ry e ve n b e fo re the ini tiatio n o f l iti g atio n. B ut t his litigation adva

ntag e is not the kind of har m Ex emption 7(A) is intended to guard a g ainst. Ex emption 5, not Ex emption 7(A), c overs pr ivilege s that would arise in the c ivil dis cover y context, and the Court has alre ady reje cted EPA' s claim that Exempti on 5 applies. Ther efor e, EPA may not withhold the vadose zone model under E x emption 7(A). Indeed, a conclusion that
a c ivi l li tig atio n ( or

dis c ov e ry

) a dv anta g e po te nti a lly

re a lize d b y

the pr od uc tio n o f a

do c ume nt i s enoug h to warr ant protec tion under Exemption 7(A) would risk unbounded expansion of that law enfor ceme nt exempti on. CO NC LU SION For these re asons, plaintiffs' summary judgme nt motion t o compel disclosure of the g roundwater flow mode l is denied and EPA' s summary judgme nt motion s eekingto withhold the g ro un dw ate r f

low mod e l is g ra

nte d. On the oth e r h and , p la int if

fs ' summa ry jud g me nt m oti on

to compel disclosure of the va dose zone model is gr anted a nd EPA' s summary

judgme nt motion
s e e k i n gt o w i th h o l d

th e v a d o s e z o n e m o d e l i s d e n i e d
. As e p ar at e O r d e r h a s b e e ni s s u e d

t o d ay.